On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 09:01:33AM -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
Up to now the glusterfs and hekafs versions and releases have been the same for f16 and rawhide, i.e.: glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.rpm, glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc17.rpm, hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc16.rpm, and hekafs-0.7-16.x86_64.fc17.rpm.
I did that because the source, thus far, is exactly the same for both f16 and rawhide. In f16 and rawhide both glusterfs and hekafs used sysv init.d scripts.
Now for rawhide I'm going to switch to systemd. I know I can't switch to systemd for f16, so the question is, what scheme should I used for the release numbering?
If you are planning only minor updates in F-16, you can probably use the description on "Minor release bummps for old branches" [1]. The result would than be something like:
glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.rpm - base version with sysv-init glusterfs-3.2.4-2.x86_64.fc17.rpm - updated version with systemd-unit
Bugfixes for F-16 can be done as patches/backports and the new nvr would be glusterfs-3.2.4-1.x86_64.fc16.1. For F-17/Rawhide it would just be in the new upstream version, or updated release as in glusterfs-3.2.4-3.x86_64.fc17.
Personally I would favour this, but it will involve maintaining a seperate branch for the sysv-init version of the package. The main advantage is that the F-17/Rawhide spec will be kept simple, and there is no need to remove the %if statements once there is no sysv-init version available anymore. It will be impractical if you are planning big(ger) updates that would need a real version bump.
Cheers, Niels
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bump...